<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1978 (11) TMI 132 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152442</link>
    <description>Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was treated as broadly worded, so reassessment was not limited to cases where the original assessment contained a bona fide mistake. The only restraint identified was that the authority must act in good faith when forming the belief that turnover had been under-assessed, escaped assessment, assessed at a lower rate, or wrongly deducted. An erroneous omission to tax part of the assessable turnover could still amount to escaped assessment, even where a return had been filed. Reopening of the assessment was therefore upheld, and the view that jurisdiction to reopen was absent was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Jul 2013 16:48:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=169480" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (11) TMI 132 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152442</link>
      <description>Section 19(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act was treated as broadly worded, so reassessment was not limited to cases where the original assessment contained a bona fide mistake. The only restraint identified was that the authority must act in good faith when forming the belief that turnover had been under-assessed, escaped assessment, assessed at a lower rate, or wrongly deducted. An erroneous omission to tax part of the assessable turnover could still amount to escaped assessment, even where a return had been filed. Reopening of the assessment was therefore upheld, and the view that jurisdiction to reopen was absent was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=152442</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>